ERIC EJ1108121: Knowledge, Attitudes and Behaviour Regarding Waste Management in a Grammar and a Comprehensive School in England--Results from a School Questionnaire

2015·0.19 MB·English

by  ERIC

DOI: 10.1515/jtes-2015-0005
Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability,
vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 58ñ71, 2015
Knowledge, Attitudes and Behaviour
regarding Waste Management in a Grammar
and a Comprehensive School in England ñ
Results from a School Questionnaire
Karin Dorina Kolbe
University of Koblenz and Landau, Germany
Abstract
Well-organised waste management is an essential part of sustainable development. The
saving of resources and energy is everyoneís concern and environmental education is
vital to guarantee a sustainable lifestyle in the long run. To find out what similarities
and differences in views regarding waste management exist between grammar school
pupils and comprehensive school pupils in England, questionnaires were designed and
distributed in two schools in the same English city. The questionnaires aimed at quanti-
fying and establishing studentsí knowledge, attitudes and behaviour regarding waste
management. The results illustrate that students from the grammar school had higher
levels of knowledge, were more likely to recycle and used more sources of information
regarding waste management. Waste reduction was considered important by almost all
students. However, students in both schools considered composting and waste reduction
as less important than recycling and thereby did not fully agree with sustainable waste
management.
Keywords: waste management, education for sustainable development, selective
education, sustainable development, environmental education, waste management, waste
hierarchy
Effective and efficient waste management is an essential part of sustainable develop-
ment (Baud, Grafakos, Hordijk, & Post, 2001; Morrissey & Browne, 2004). At the
level of the European Union (EU), a range of strategies to deal with waste are suggested
(European Commission (EC), 1996, 2011; Pires, Martinho, & Chang, 2011; Wilson,
1996). On the societal level, education about environmental matters is vital to help
achieve a more sustainable lifestyle in the long run. Primary and secondary school tuition
has been identified as a key factor regarding education in general and environmental
education in particular (Ballantyne, Fien, & Packer, 2001; Gross, 1977; Farmer,
Knapp,& Benton, 2007). To address the particular needs of different student groups, it
is essential to understand what levels of knowledge already exist in these student popu-
Knowledge, Attitudes and Behaviour regarding Waste Management.. 59
lations. Until now, grammar school and comprehensive school pupils have never been
compared with respect to their knowledge, attitudes and behaviour regarding waste
management. To find out what differences exist, questionnaires regarding waste ma-
nagement were distributed to students in a grammar school and a comprehensive
school in the same city in eastern England. The questionnaire was designed to assess
studentsí knowledge, the perception which they held of different waste management
options and their behaviour regarding recycling, as well as their attitudes towards waste
reduction.
While some grammar schools have a long history, grammar schools that are in
existence today in England and Wales are largely a product of the 1840 Grammar
School Act (Gordon & Lawton, 2003; Oakland, 1993). A selection process at the age
of eleven leads to students entering grammar school, who are believed to be more able
than their counterparts in comprehensive schools. Admission to the grammar school
depends on an academic selection test, such as the eleven plus. The eleven-plus tests
arithmetic, writing and general problem solving abilities of the students. It does not
cover environmental education or waste management specifically.
There has been a long debate on whether this system is useful for the individual
students and society as a whole (Boliver & Swift, 2011; Clifford & Heath, 1984; Sullivan,
Parsons, Wiggins, Heath, & Green, 2014). Supporters of selective education argue that
it is more equitable because it selects students based upon their academic achieve-
ments instead of social class or economic power, although this hypothesis has been
challenged by some researchers (Harris & Rose, 2013; Iannelli, 2013; Steedman, 2012;
Walford, 1994). Also, it is believed that a stimulating learning environment is created
by tutoring the stronger and weaker students in separate groups (Manning & Pischke,
2006). Critics, on the other hand, point out that educational equality decreased rather
than increased as a result of selective education (Hanushek & Woessmann, 2006).
Moreover, it is pointed out that a selection process at the age of eleven is too early for
many children because many cognitive developments happen after this age (Manning&
Pischke, 2006). Overall, grammar schools are more socially exclusive (Ball, Bowe, &
Gewirtz, 1996; Crozier, Reay, James, Jamieson, Beedell, Hollingworth, & Williams,
2008; the Sutton Trust, 2005). The proportion of students with an Asian background is
higher than in the general population, black students as well as students from poorer
backgrounds are underrepresented (Cribb, Jesson, Sibieta, Skipp, & Vignoles, 2013).
Differences between the two school types might therefore be a result not only of the
different institutional backgrounds, but also of social exclusiveness. However, this must
not hide the fact that knowledge of potential differences ñ no matter for which reasons
they exist ñ is important. Teachers and legislators need to be aware of the different
perceptions and knowledge levels to provide suitable approaches regarding education
about sustainable development.
The EU Waste Hierarchy
In 2008, the EU waste hierarchy, which can be seen in Figure 1, became legally
binding for EU member countries (EC, 2012). Its aims are the prevention of waste, the
saving of energy and the conserving of resources (Schmidt, Holm, Merrild, & Christensen,
2007). According to the waste hierarchy, the best option regarding waste management
is to avoid the production of waste in the first place. If this is not possible, waste should
60 Karin Dorina Kolbe
be re-used since this will save a maximum of resources and energy. If neither reduction
nor re-use is possible, waste materials should be recycled, composted, treated via incine-
ration with energy recovery or ñ if all of these options are not possible ñ landfilled
(European Parliament and European Council, 2008).
Figure 1. The waste hierarchy as described in the EU Waste Framework Directive.
Waste Management in the United Kingdom
In the past, a large proportion of the UKís household waste was disposed of in
landfill sites. In 2003, the UK landfilled 438 kg of municipal waste per capita ñ74% of
its total waste (Eurostat, 2015). Other western European countries landfilled considerably
less waste in 2003. For example, Austria landfilled 30%, Belgium 11%, Denmark 7%,
Germany 20%, the Netherlands 3% and Sweden 13%. The EU average was 50%. The
reasons for the UKís high landfill rate can be seen in a range of factors. A lack of public
interest, the availability of cheap landfill sites, limited collection services for recyclable
materials and costs associated with recycling were just a few of the reasons for this
(Morris, Phillips, & Read, 1998; Price, 2001; Read, 1999; Read, Phillips, & Robinson,
1997; Symanski, 1996). As a consequence, many materials which are easily recyclable
ended up on landfill sites (Popplewell et al., 2006). However, this situation has changed
as a result of EU-pressure, governmental regulations and education campaigns. Today,
recyclables such as paper, plastic and glass are normally treated separately from the rest
of the waste stream ñ which resulted in a recycling rate of over 44% in 2013 (Department
for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs [DEFRA], 2014). From 2015 onwards, separate
collection for waste paper, metal, plastic and glass is mandatory under the Waste Regu-
lations 2011. Relevant education campaigns in schools and elsewhere grew in number
and scope (DEFRA, 2006; Waste Watch, 2015; Zhang, Williams, Kemp, & Smith,2011).
Nevertheless, compared with its European neighbours, the UK still relies heavily
on landfill for the final disposal of household waste. In 2012, approximately 172 kg ñ
around 35% ñ of municipal waste was landfilled per capita. In the same year, Belgium
landfilled 5 kg, Denmark ñ 17 kg, Germany ñ 3 kg, the Netherlands ñ 8 kg, Norway ñ
9 kg and Sweden ñ 3 kg per capita. The EU average was 160 kg per capita (Eurostat,
2015). Waste reduction ñ the best option to manage waste ñ is reflected in the national
Knowledge, Attitudes and Behaviour regarding Waste Management.. 61
municipal waste production statistics, as can be seen in Figure 2. Between 2003 and
2012, the amount of waste produced per capita decreased from 591 kg in 2003 to 472
kg in 2012 (Eurostat, 2015). In 2012, the UK consequently produced less waste than
the average EU citizen (who produced 488 kg) but more than other EU members such
as Belgium (456 kg), the Czech Republic (308 kg), Poland (314 kg) or Sweden (462 kg).
Incineration with energy recovery is currently on the rise but this technology is still
regarded sceptically by a large part of the population in the UK (Lima, 2004, 2006;
United Kingdom Without Incineration Network (UKWIN), 2014).
p
Figure 2. Waste production in kilogram per person between 2003 and 2012 in the UK
and the EU (Eurostat, 2015)
Research Aim
Sustainable development is an important aim and needs to be strengthened. In the
area of waste management, everybody can help to achieve a more sustainable future by
producing as little waste as possible and by helping to recycle and compost as much
waste as possible. Schools in particular can help to achieve this aim.
Until now, it has not been analysed in how far grammar school students differ from
comprehensive school students in their knowledge, attitudes and behaviour in respect
to waste management. In the current study, questionnaires were designed and distributed
in a grammar and a comprehensive school in the same city of eastern England to find
out what similarities and differences exist between the two student populations. It is of
importance to find out what teachers in different school types can do to further promote
sustainable development in the long run. The research aim of the current study is therefore
to identify current weaknesses in the area of knowledge, attitudes and behaviour regarding
waste management in a comprehensive and a grammar school. While appropriate waste
management is a vast field and education on waste management cannot cover all potential
aspects of this field, teachers should be able to be aware that some areas of waste
management or some waste management options need particular attention.
The basis for the analysis is the waste hierarchy as is stipulated in the EU waste
framework directive. Waste reduction is seen as superior to waste re-use, re-use as
superior to recycling/composting, which is seen as superior to incineration with energy
recovery. Landfill is seen as the worst option for managing waste.
62 Karin Dorina Kolbe
Method
To explore similarities and differences between students from a grammar and a
comprehensive school in respect to knowledge, attitudes and behaviour regarding waste
management, an explorative approach was chosen. In 2009, questionnaires were designed
and piloted in different schools in England. Teachers in each of the schools where the
questionnaire was tested were addressed regarding the questionnaire. Teachers cross-
checked the language and the content of the questionnaire and were asked whether they
considered the questions appropriate for the school type and the age of the questioned
students.
After piloting the questionnaire, a range of questions were rephrased or changed
completely to take into account the level of knowledge of the students. In general,
students over the age of 11 understood the questions well. Younger students often had
problems with some of the questions. The questionnaire was than distributed in two
schools in the same city in England. The city is situated in the east of England and has
a population of around 100,000. The city was chosen because teachers in both schoolsñ
the comprehensive and the grammar school ñ were supportive of the research aim and
agreed to participate in the questionnaire.
Obtaining information from multiple choice and open-ended questions on waste
management, attitudes regarding waste management options and behaviour in the area
of waste recycling were objectives of the questionnaire. Students were also asked where
they gained their waste-related knowledge from.
Specifically, the part of the questionnaire which is analysed in this paper consisted
of seven questions. Question 1: Below is a list of issues. Please tick the relevant box to
indicate how much you know about the different issues. A list of concepts was provided.
Students could choose between the answer options: I have never heard of it; I have heard
of it but I donít know what it means and I have heard of it and I know what it means.
Question 2: Please indicate how important on a scale, you find the issues listed
below (10 = very important and 1 = not at all important). Students were asked how
important different waste related waste management options (reduce the amount of
waste, recycle waste, compost organic waste and re-use waste) appear to them.
Question 3: Do you think we should reduce the amount of household waste or
rubbish? If you think we should not reduce it, please tell us why. If you think we should
reduce it, please also tell us why.
Question 4: If you do recycle, please tell us which materials you recycle and how
often. Students could choose between ìwhenever possibleî; ìat least once every monthî;
ìat least twice a yearî; ìalmost neverî and ìother (please specify)î. For the purpose of
the analysis, ìat least once every monthî and ìat least twice a yearî were summarised
as one category which is called ìsometimesî.
Question 5: A list of materials is provided below. Please circle the materials that
can be recycled.
Question 6: If you know what incineration is, please tell us if you think that it is a
good way of treating waste. The answer options were: Yes it is, because...; No, it isnít,
because...; It can be if... and I donít know. Students could then explain their viewpoint.
Question 7: Where did you get your waste related knowledge from? A list of potential
sources was provided.
Participating pupils were between 13 and 14 years of age. 110 students were surveyed
in the grammar school and 143 in the comprehensive school. The questionnaires were
Knowledge, Attitudes and Behaviour regarding Waste Management.. 63
filled out anonymously in class. The same researcher handed out the questionnaires in
both schools on different days of the same month. The researcher highlighted that there
are no right or wrong answers, that the questionnaire and the answers to the questions
were completely anonymous and that copying of neighbours was therefore not necessary.
Teachers were advised to not provide any help in cases where students were unsure
about a question.
Quantitative and qualitative analyses were carried out. For the quantitative analysis,
the statistical software package SPSS and Excel were used. Answers to multiple choice
questions were analysed by providing cross-tabulation and calculating frequencies to
allow direct comparison between the two student groups. Open-ended questions were
grouped into categories so as to be able to compare them relatively easily. For instance,
answer options such as Incineration is bad because it pollutes the air and Incineration is
bad because it leads to exhaust gases were compiled in the section Incineration leads to
air pollution. The answers were also compiled into categories by another researcher
from the same department. In some cases, this researcher compiled the answers slightly
differently and used more categories. Where there were discrepancies regarding categories,
instead of combining them, more categories were created. Answers which were only
given by one student were compiled under a specific section which is called Other.
Results
Question 1: Different waste-related concepts were provided, and students were
asked whether they were aware of these concepts. The results can be seen in Table 1.
Overall, students from the grammar school were more likely to state that they ìhad
heard aboutî the particular concepts and ìknew what it meantî, whereas comprehensive
school students often stated that they had not heard of a concept or did not know what
it meant. For instance, over 11% of the students from the comprehensive school had
not heard about incineration and over 15% had never heard of landfill.
Table 1
Percentage of Students who had Heard of the Named Concepts, had not Heard of the
Concepts or Knew what They Meant
Have heard of it/ Have heard of it/
Have never heard Missing
donít know what know what it
of it answer
it means means
e e e e
v v v v
r si r si r si r si
maol enol maol enol maol enol maol enol
Gramscho mprehscho Gramscho mprehscho Gramscho mprehscho Gramscho mprehscho
o o o o
C C C C
Recycling of paper 0.0 3.5 0.9 1.4 99.1 95.1 0.0 0.0
Kerbside collection 0.0 4.9 10.9 21.0 89.1 74.1 0.0 0.0
Composting 0.0 5.6 1.8 18.9 98.2 74.8 0.0 0.7
Incineration 0.9 11.2 19.1 26.6 80.0 61.5 0.0 0.7
Landfill 1.8 15.4 13.6 24.5 84.6 59.4 0.0 0.7
64 Karin Dorina Kolbe
Question 2: Students were asked how important different waste management options
appear to them on a scale from 1 to 10. The arithmetic means (which are provided in
Table 2) indicate that the order of importance (given in brackets) is the same between
grammar and comprehensive school students. However, grammar school students rated
all concepts as more important than the comprehensive school students.
Table 2
Mean Values of Importance of Waste Management Options, the Order of Importance
is Shown in Brackets
Importance
Concept
Grammar school Comprehensive school
Reduce the amount of waste 8.39 (2) 7.76 (2)
Recycle waste 8.6 (1) 7.93 (1)
Compost organic waste 7.58 (4) 6.18 (4)
Re-use waste 7.97 (3) 6.91 (3)
Question 3: When asked whether students thought that waste volumes should be
reduced, all students in the grammar school and all students ñ except one ñ in the
comprehensive school stated that waste should be reduced. The comprehensive school
student that did not find a reduction of waste important stated that it would be ìbad
for recycling companiesî whereas all the other students named primarily environmental
reasons for the reduction. Limited landfill capacity, global warming and environmental
pollution were the reasons most often named by both, grammar school students and
comprehensive school students, for a reduction of waste. Around 10% of the grammar
school students also named the saving of resources as a reason. This aspect was only
named by 3.4% of the comprehensive school students. Overall, the answers given by
the grammar school students and the comprehensive school students did not show large
differences.
Question 4: When asked about recycling behaviour, there is a clear difference
between grammar school students and comprehensive school students. The former
recycled more often ìwhenever possibleî while the later recycled ìalmost neverî or left
the answer blank, as can be seen in Table 3.
Question 5: Asked about whether they knew which materials could be recycled,
grammar school students more often classified materials correctly as recyclable, as can
be seen in Table 4. Tetra Paks were the only material which was more often classified
correctly by comprehensive school students compared to grammar school students. The
same percentage of students in the grammar and the comprehensive school classified
PET bottles correctly.
Knowledge, Attitudes and Behaviour regarding Waste Management.. 65
Table 3
Percentage of Students who Stated that they Recycled Whenever Possible, Sometimes
or Almost Never
Whenever possible Sometimes Almost never Missing answer
e e e e
v v v v
r si r si r si r si
maol enol maol enol maol enol maol enol
Gramscho mprehscho Gramscho mprehscho Gramscho mprehscho Gramscho mprehscho
o o o o
C C C C
Paper 88.2 70.6 10.9 10.5 0.9 4.9 0 14
Cans 69.1 55.2 16.4 12.6 9.1 14.7 5.4 17.5
Glass bottles 72.2 55.2 14.5 16.8 10.0 11.9 3.3 16.1
Table 4
Percentage of Students who Classified the Named Materials Correctly as Recyclable
Correct answer (%)
Materials
Grammar school Comprehensive school
Paper 99 97
Glass 97 80
Fruit juice cartons (Tetra Paks) 46 54
Plastic bottles (PET bottles) 84 84
Drink cans 93 84
Cardboard 96 91
Aluminium Foil 44 36
Question 6: Students were also asked whether they considered incineration as a
good technology to treat waste, a potentially good technology to treat waste if certain
criteria are met, not a good technology to treat waste, or whether they were unsure if
incineration is a good technology for the treatment of waste. Students were also asked
to provide reasons for their judgement.
The answers can be seen in Table 5. Grammar school students were more likely to
have an opinion about incineration. They more often stated that it is not a good tech-
nology for the treatment of waste and were also more likely to consider it a potentially
good technology if certain criteria are met. Students who thought that it could potentially
be a good technology normally named the containment of fumes, the recovery of energy
and the limitation of the technology to materials which cannot (easily) be recycled.
Students who disapprove of incineration considered it harmful to human health and the
environment.
Overall, students from the comprehensive school were more likely to have no opinion
about incineration, either by ticking I do not know whether it is a good technology for
the treatment of waste or by leaving the answer to the question blank. Over 50% of the
students answered the question in this way.
66 Karin Dorina Kolbe
Table 5
Impression that the Students from the Grammar and the Comprehensive School had
about Incineration
Answers (%)
Grammar Comprehensive
school school
A good technology for the treatment of waste 5 7
Not a good technology for the treatment of waste 44 29
A potentially good technology if certain criteria are met 17 11
I do not know whether it is a good technology 18 26
No answer given 16 27
Question 7: Finally, students were asked from where they gained their knowledge
of waste related subjects. Around 80% of the students from the grammar school stated
that they received their knowledge from school, compared to around 50% of the students
from comprehensive school. Grammar school students were also more likely to receive
their knowledge from their families. Around 90% stated that this was one source of
their information compared to 70% of the comprehensive school students. At the same
time, grammar school students were also more likely to receive their information from
friends (40% compared to 20%), magazines (25% compared to 19%), television (83%
compared to 68%) and the Internet (44% compared to 25%). Hence, they were overall
more likely to receive information from the named sources and more likely to use different
information resources.
Discussion
Overall, grammar school students had higher levels of knowledge and were more
likely to recycle materials. They also rated different waste management options (reduc-
tion, re-use, recycling and composting) as being of higher importance compared to the
students from the comprehensive school. However, the order of importance was the
same between students from the grammar school and students from the comprehensive
school. Both student groups considered recycling as most important, followed by waste
reduction, re-use of waste and finally by composting. According to the waste hierarchy
and national policy, waste reduction is the best option, followed by re-use and then
recycling/composting. It should be easy to see that reduction is the most sustainable
option: it leads to a maximising of resources and energy savings. It is therefore surprising
that students did not rate it as the most important of the proposed options.
Interestingly, students do not feel that recycling and composting are equally impor-
tant, although the treatment hierarchy sees these two approaches as being of equal
importance. Both recycling and composting divert waste efficiently away from landfill.
In the case of compostable materials, this is of particular environmental importance
because organic fractions lead to the release of methane when put on landfill sites and
thus exacerbates global warming. The students surveyed, however, clearly favoured
recycling over composting, which might indicate a lack of knowledge regarding the life-
cycle of organic fractions that end up on landfill sites.
In respect to studentsí attitudes regarding landfill, grammar school students and
comprehensive school students were equally likely to dislike the technique for environ-
Knowledge, Attitudes and Behaviour regarding Waste Management.. 67
mental reasons. Equally, almost all students from both schools stated that waste should
be reduced for environmental or social reasons; this is in accordance with the waste
hierarchy.
Incineration was overall regarded sceptically by the majority of the students. Gram-
mar school students were more likely to voice their dislike for the technology or to
connect it to factors such as energy recovery, filtration technologies or the limitation to
materials which cannot (easily) be recycled. Students from the comprehensive school
were more likely to have no opinion about incineration, illustrating the need for more
specific information to be provided in comprehensive schools regarding this technology.
In general, students should be aware that incineration is currently used and that it can
help to reduce landfill volumes. However, students should also be aware that waste
reduction, re-use, recycling and composting are more sustainable compared with in-
cineration. Only if the advantages and disadvantages of incineration are known will
students be able to judge the technology realistically. Around 50% of the comprehensive
school students and over 35% of the grammar school students seem to lack this know-
ledge.
When it comes to recycling behaviour, grammar school students outperformed
their counterparts from comprehensive school. They were more likely to recycle paper,
glass and cans ìwhenever possibleî. Whether this is a result of higher levels of knowledge
remains unclear. Family background, personal values and household infrastructure clearly
also play a role, as has been shown by a range of researchers (Best & Mayerl, 2013;
Edgerton, McKechnie, & Dunleavy, 2009; Kaciak & Kushner, 2009).
Overall, grammar school students had higher levels of knowledge and showed a
more environmentally friendly attitude compared to comprehensive school students. It
can therefore be assumed that they are more environmentally concerned and better
educated regarding waste management. Both might lead to them recycling more often.
Comprehensive school students surprisingly often stated that they had not heard about
some of the named waste management options or that they did not know what they
meant. This lack of knowledge needs to be addressed at school since only knowledgeable
students will make the right choices when it comes to waste management behaviour.
Overall, comprehensive school students were less likely to receive their information
from different sources such as their family, friends, television or the Internet. To com-
pensate for these shortcomings, schools need to put particular emphasis on waste related
issues. At the moment, only 50% of the comprehensive school students stated that they
received their knowledge about waste management in school. In this area, comprehensive
school teachers can clearly increase information flow by highlighting the benefits, needs
and possibilities of waste management options on the regional, the national and the
global level. While knowledge alone is not sufficient for behavioural changes, it is a
necessary precondition. Equally, the large proportion of students who had no opinion
about incineration should be addressed since it will lead to young adults that are unaware
of the possible benefits and drawbacks of incineration technologies. They are therefore
more prone to manipulation by pressure groups. In a country where incineration plants
are currently widely used, built and also have much opposition, it is essential that students
are aware of the possibilities (as well as the limitations of incineration) and that they
are able to reflect rationally on this technology.
Education can help to minimise these shortcomings by providing neutral information
on waste management options. While this might not necessarily enhance recycling beha-